LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Inflation was also much higher.bompington said:Stats quoted in all these posts are all true and relevant, but no-one seems to be mentioning the other factors - cheifly interest rates.
I well remember taking out my first mortgage in 1990 (some guys have all the luck) which was less than a 2X multiple of my salary, but cost me half of my take home pay just in interest.0 -
Well Australia doubled bond purchases which seems to have calmed things down. As a matter of interest do you think we are closer to the end than you thought two weeks ago?rick_chasey said:Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,
Can’t find it now but Times reporting servicing costs up by £25bn by end of Parliament which will be more than all his proposed tax increases0 -
Still significantly lower than it was even 5 years ago. I mean massively less.surrey_commuter said:
Well Australia doubled bond purchases which seems to have calmed things down. As a matter of interest do you think we are closer to the end than you thought two weeks ago?rick_chasey said:Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,
Can’t find it now but Times reporting servicing costs up by £25bn by end of Parliament which will be more than all his proposed tax increases
I am always a proponent of being led by the cost of servicing, not by a meaningless big number, and I think the discourse around public spending should be around that.
So I am just trying to show you both sides, as recently the cost of borrowing has been going so far down that it seems like i am being one sided.
0 -
Do you get my point that looking at the price today is meaningless when the debt will be higher still in 5 or ten years time and that when they lose control of rates there will be an almighty day of reckoning?rick_chasey said:
Still significantly lower than it was even 5 years ago. I mean massively less.surrey_commuter said:
Well Australia doubled bond purchases which seems to have calmed things down. As a matter of interest do you think we are closer to the end than you thought two weeks ago?rick_chasey said:Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,
Can’t find it now but Times reporting servicing costs up by £25bn by end of Parliament which will be more than all his proposed tax increases
I am always a proponent of being led by the cost of servicing, not by a meaningless big number, and I think the discourse around public spending should be around that.
So I am just trying to show you both sides, as recently the cost of borrowing has been going so far down that it seems like i am being one sided.0 -
Yeah we are going around in circles.surrey_commuter said:
Do you get my point that looking at the price today is meaningless when the debt will be higher still in 5 or ten years time and that when they lose control of rates there will be an almighty day of reckoning?rick_chasey said:
Still significantly lower than it was even 5 years ago. I mean massively less.surrey_commuter said:
Well Australia doubled bond purchases which seems to have calmed things down. As a matter of interest do you think we are closer to the end than you thought two weeks ago?rick_chasey said:Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,
Can’t find it now but Times reporting servicing costs up by £25bn by end of Parliament which will be more than all his proposed tax increases
I am always a proponent of being led by the cost of servicing, not by a meaningless big number, and I think the discourse around public spending should be around that.
So I am just trying to show you both sides, as recently the cost of borrowing has been going so far down that it seems like i am being one sided.
Yes this is a risk but it is minimised as the reasons it will be raised mitigate the problem if that happens (likely inflation or growth), but we are in a crisis which is as bad as rates being very expensive, if not worse, right now.0 -
try and keep off the crisis as my point is that the problems are caused by the Govt borrowing as much as possible every year (£60bn a year ago) and changing the fiscal rules to justify it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah we are going around in circles.surrey_commuter said:
Do you get my point that looking at the price today is meaningless when the debt will be higher still in 5 or ten years time and that when they lose control of rates there will be an almighty day of reckoning?rick_chasey said:
Still significantly lower than it was even 5 years ago. I mean massively less.surrey_commuter said:
Well Australia doubled bond purchases which seems to have calmed things down. As a matter of interest do you think we are closer to the end than you thought two weeks ago?rick_chasey said:Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,
Can’t find it now but Times reporting servicing costs up by £25bn by end of Parliament which will be more than all his proposed tax increases
I am always a proponent of being led by the cost of servicing, not by a meaningless big number, and I think the discourse around public spending should be around that.
So I am just trying to show you both sides, as recently the cost of borrowing has been going so far down that it seems like i am being one sided.
Yes this is a risk but it is minimised as the reasons it will be raised mitigate the problem if that happens (likely inflation or growth), but we are in a crisis which is as bad as rates being very expensive, if not worse, right now.
At some point debt servicing costs will spiral out of control.0 -
Its all relative. The £54 k flat bought in 2000 was sold in 2008 for £128. Not a bad investment when I only put up £5k in equity. I would have had to be doing some pretty highly leveraged stuff in the stock market to turn £5k into £74k and been right a lot of the time. Your London flat would not have had a rent of £450 per month.pblakeney said:
You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?john80 said:
I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.pblakeney said:Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?
£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.
£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.
If only they were more representative.0 -
This is not a rule. This may not happen.surrey_commuter said:
try and keep off the crisis as my point is that the problems are caused by the Govt borrowing as much as possible every year (£60bn a year ago) and changing the fiscal rules to justify it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah we are going around in circles.surrey_commuter said:
Do you get my point that looking at the price today is meaningless when the debt will be higher still in 5 or ten years time and that when they lose control of rates there will be an almighty day of reckoning?rick_chasey said:
Still significantly lower than it was even 5 years ago. I mean massively less.surrey_commuter said:
Well Australia doubled bond purchases which seems to have calmed things down. As a matter of interest do you think we are closer to the end than you thought two weeks ago?rick_chasey said:Well SC, there's been a massive US treasuries bond rout today so perhaps the market is getting more worried about the sustainability of the monster stimulus Biden has planned,
Can’t find it now but Times reporting servicing costs up by £25bn by end of Parliament which will be more than all his proposed tax increases
I am always a proponent of being led by the cost of servicing, not by a meaningless big number, and I think the discourse around public spending should be around that.
So I am just trying to show you both sides, as recently the cost of borrowing has been going so far down that it seems like i am being one sided.
Yes this is a risk but it is minimised as the reasons it will be raised mitigate the problem if that happens (likely inflation or growth), but we are in a crisis which is as bad as rates being very expensive, if not worse, right now.
At some point debt servicing costs will spiral out of control.0 -
Apples and pears. Apparently you can sell a flat in London and buy 6 houses in Cumbria. How much was the property that you bought in 2008 worth in 2000? That was in a peak boom time.john80 said:
Its all relative. The £54 k flat bought in 2000 was sold in 2008 for £128. Not a bad investment when I only put up £5k in equity. I would have had to be doing some pretty highly leveraged stuff in the stock market to turn £5k into £74k and been right a lot of the time. Your London flat would not have had a rent of £450 per month.pblakeney said:
You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?john80 said:
I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.pblakeney said:Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?
£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.
£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.
If only they were more representative.
Point is that house prices are too far out of step with wages. The average house in an average area should be @ £100k, not the £231,855 that it is.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It is actually a common problem with houses being bought up by those from the South retiring in the North. The difference was similar in price between cumbria and Scotland. I would be retired at 40 if I had dropped out of uni and bought and renovated flats in Glasgow between 1998 and 2008. An issue with such unbalanced house prices is that those in the North get frozen out of the South should they need to move for work. If you go the East side of the Lake District you can pay some serious money for houses so it is not a totally flat market. We sold the 2008 house for 5k loss in probably about 2015 but bought a much bigger house in 2011 or there abouts when the market was depressed. I agree with your assessment of house prices versus wages. Without such low interest rates there would be a serious buyer shortage.pblakeney said:
Apples and pears. Apparently you can sell a flat in London and buy 6 houses in Cumbria. How much was the property that you bought in 2008 worth in 2000? That was in a peak boom time.john80 said:
Its all relative. The £54 k flat bought in 2000 was sold in 2008 for £128. Not a bad investment when I only put up £5k in equity. I would have had to be doing some pretty highly leveraged stuff in the stock market to turn £5k into £74k and been right a lot of the time. Your London flat would not have had a rent of £450 per month.pblakeney said:
You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?john80 said:
I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.pblakeney said:Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?
£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.
£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.
If only they were more representative.
Point is that house prices are too far out of step with wages. The average house in an average area should be @ £100k, not the £231,855 that it is.0 -
whilst I do think the market is over inflated I also think that people kid themselves about how much they make.john80 said:
It is actually a common problem with houses being bought up by those from the South retiring in the North. The difference was similar in price between cumbria and Scotland. I would be retired at 40 if I had dropped out of uni and bought and renovated flats in Glasgow between 1998 and 2008. An issue with such unbalanced house prices is that those in the North get frozen out of the South should they need to move for work. If you go the East side of the Lake District you can pay some serious money for houses so it is not a totally flat market. We sold the 2008 house for 5k loss in probably about 2015 but bought a much bigger house in 2011 or there abouts when the market was depressed. I agree with your assessment of house prices versus wages. Without such low interest rates there would be a serious buyer shortage.pblakeney said:
Apples and pears. Apparently you can sell a flat in London and buy 6 houses in Cumbria. How much was the property that you bought in 2008 worth in 2000? That was in a peak boom time.john80 said:
Its all relative. The £54 k flat bought in 2000 was sold in 2008 for £128. Not a bad investment when I only put up £5k in equity. I would have had to be doing some pretty highly leveraged stuff in the stock market to turn £5k into £74k and been right a lot of the time. Your London flat would not have had a rent of £450 per month.pblakeney said:
You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?john80 said:
I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.pblakeney said:Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?
£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.
£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.
If only they were more representative.
Point is that house prices are too far out of step with wages. The average house in an average area should be @ £100k, not the £231,855 that it is.
If somebody says they made £100k on a house check if they have deducted stamp duty, solicitors, searches and estate agent fees. And for a reall laugh get them to count in all mortgage costs. And add up the costs of decorating, carpets, kitchens and bathrooms
If you borrowed £500k over ten years to invest in shares you would know at the end exactly what your profit was after all costs.
I know people have to live somewhere but many people are borrowing the max not the min on the assumption that their asset will go up in value.0 -
Gives the average Joe the excuse to think they are some kind of Warren Buffet, all because the purchased something they needed to live in.surrey_commuter said:
whilst I do think the market is over inflated I also think that people kid themselves about how much they make.john80 said:
It is actually a common problem with houses being bought up by those from the South retiring in the North. The difference was similar in price between cumbria and Scotland. I would be retired at 40 if I had dropped out of uni and bought and renovated flats in Glasgow between 1998 and 2008. An issue with such unbalanced house prices is that those in the North get frozen out of the South should they need to move for work. If you go the East side of the Lake District you can pay some serious money for houses so it is not a totally flat market. We sold the 2008 house for 5k loss in probably about 2015 but bought a much bigger house in 2011 or there abouts when the market was depressed. I agree with your assessment of house prices versus wages. Without such low interest rates there would be a serious buyer shortage.pblakeney said:
Apples and pears. Apparently you can sell a flat in London and buy 6 houses in Cumbria. How much was the property that you bought in 2008 worth in 2000? That was in a peak boom time.john80 said:
Its all relative. The £54 k flat bought in 2000 was sold in 2008 for £128. Not a bad investment when I only put up £5k in equity. I would have had to be doing some pretty highly leveraged stuff in the stock market to turn £5k into £74k and been right a lot of the time. Your London flat would not have had a rent of £450 per month.pblakeney said:
You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?john80 said:
I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.pblakeney said:Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?
£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.
£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.
If only they were more representative.
Point is that house prices are too far out of step with wages. The average house in an average area should be @ £100k, not the £231,855 that it is.
If somebody says they made £100k on a house check if they have deducted stamp duty, solicitors, searches and estate agent fees. And for a reall laugh get them to count in all mortgage costs. And add up the costs of decorating, carpets, kitchens and bathrooms
If you borrowed £500k over ten years to invest in shares you would know at the end exactly what your profit was after all costs.
I know people have to live somewhere but many people are borrowing the max not the min on the assumption that their asset will go up in value.0 -
They should all read the wit and wisdom of Warren BuffettJezyboy said:
Gives the average Joe the excuse to think they are some kind of Warren Buffet, all because the purchased something they needed to live in.surrey_commuter said:
whilst I do think the market is over inflated I also think that people kid themselves about how much they make.john80 said:
It is actually a common problem with houses being bought up by those from the South retiring in the North. The difference was similar in price between cumbria and Scotland. I would be retired at 40 if I had dropped out of uni and bought and renovated flats in Glasgow between 1998 and 2008. An issue with such unbalanced house prices is that those in the North get frozen out of the South should they need to move for work. If you go the East side of the Lake District you can pay some serious money for houses so it is not a totally flat market. We sold the 2008 house for 5k loss in probably about 2015 but bought a much bigger house in 2011 or there abouts when the market was depressed. I agree with your assessment of house prices versus wages. Without such low interest rates there would be a serious buyer shortage.pblakeney said:
Apples and pears. Apparently you can sell a flat in London and buy 6 houses in Cumbria. How much was the property that you bought in 2008 worth in 2000? That was in a peak boom time.john80 said:
Its all relative. The £54 k flat bought in 2000 was sold in 2008 for £128. Not a bad investment when I only put up £5k in equity. I would have had to be doing some pretty highly leveraged stuff in the stock market to turn £5k into £74k and been right a lot of the time. Your London flat would not have had a rent of £450 per month.pblakeney said:
You do realise that the majority on here will be falling about laughing at how low these figures are?john80 said:
I find the housing one interesting as it is one investment category that even if you do without in your portfolio you still need to buy the service in the form of rent unless you really like cardboard boxes. If I think back to houses or flats I have owned even with no growth on the price it would have been cheaper to own over renting assuming you stay there for say minimum 2 years.pblakeney said:Some of us have been pointing out for some time that this ponzi scheme is out of control.
It is worse in the SE but is nationwide.
Question is will the bubble burst, or will people continue to chase the carrot while being shafted by the carrot?
£54k flat in Glasgow would be around £270 per month on a 25 year repayment with a nearly 4% rate. The private rent was around £450 per month at that time. So if you add a notional £50 per month for repairs and maintenance and say £200 per year for insurance it is cheaper to own. Only way it becomes cheaper is if you flat share with another person but that would not be an option for a family with kids.
£85k house in Cumbria is a similar deal to above. It is only when you get into the hundreds of thousands of pounds does the rental balance tip and then you have to consider you might have to move every 6 months at the bequest of your landlord and as you get older that becomes a significantly bigger hassle.
If only they were more representative.
Point is that house prices are too far out of step with wages. The average house in an average area should be @ £100k, not the £231,855 that it is.
If somebody says they made £100k on a house check if they have deducted stamp duty, solicitors, searches and estate agent fees. And for a reall laugh get them to count in all mortgage costs. And add up the costs of decorating, carpets, kitchens and bathrooms
If you borrowed £500k over ten years to invest in shares you would know at the end exactly what your profit was after all costs.
I know people have to live somewhere but many people are borrowing the max not the min on the assumption that their asset will go up in value.
It is only when the tide goes out that you see who is swimming naked0 -
Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.
If you haven't been taken in by a Daily Mash item, that's good work even for Johnson. The only misstep is that he should have saved this when he's really in need of distraction, rather than at the moment when he can take some credit for the UK's strategy on vaccinations and is doing well in polls.0 -
I would save the congratulations to the civil engineering consultancies who get on contract for feasibility studies.0
-
Jezyboy said:
I would save the congratulations to the civil engineering consultancies who get on contract for feasibility studies.
I bet they are researching pubs where Tory politicians hang out at this very minute.0 -
It was in the Belfast Telegraph so we need TWH to confirm if that is a genuine (and serious) titlebriantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.
If you haven't been taken in by a Daily Mash item, that's good work even for Johnson. The only misstep is that he should have saved this when he's really in need of distraction, rather than at the moment when he can take some credit for the UK's strategy on vaccinations and is doing well in polls.0 -
I have to admit that was my first assumption, but it does appear to be genuinely what he is suggesting. Keeps away from Beaufort's Dyke you see.briantrumpet said:If you haven't been taken in by a Daily Mash item, that's good work even for Johnson. The only misstep is that he should have saved this when he's really in need of distraction, rather than at the moment when he can take some credit for the UK's strategy on vaccinations and is doing well in polls.
And I suspect SC is right in his assessment.
But never mind tunnels, what is annoying me is that it appears to be beyond the wit of most of the UK's major power, insurance and telecommunications companies to make it across the Irish sea.0 -
I don't understand why use a tunnel. If they did it as a massive barrage instead think of all the electricity it could generate. Then stick wind turbines and solar panelling along it too. New road link and energy crisis resolved in one move, he lacks ambition.surrey_commuter said:Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.0 -
Don't forget the runways along the topPross said:
I don't understand why use a tunnel. If they did it as a massive barrage instead think of all the electricity it could generate. Then stick wind turbines and solar panelling along it too. New road link and energy crisis resolved in one move, he lacks ambition.surrey_commuter said:Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.0 -
have one at either end of the Irish Sea and make it a giant land reclamation project. Whilst it would inconvenience a few fishermen it would solve the housing problembompington said:
Don't forget the runways along the topPross said:
I don't understand why use a tunnel. If they did it as a massive barrage instead think of all the electricity it could generate. Then stick wind turbines and solar panelling along it too. New road link and energy crisis resolved in one move, he lacks ambition.surrey_commuter said:Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.0 -
And the cycle lanes in-between. 😉bompington said:
Don't forget the runways along the topPross said:
I don't understand why use a tunnel. If they did it as a massive barrage instead think of all the electricity it could generate. Then stick wind turbines and solar panelling along it too. New road link and energy crisis resolved in one move, he lacks ambition.surrey_commuter said:Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Gardens, of course, don't forget the gardens.surrey_commuter said:
have one at either end of the Irish Sea and make it a giant land reclamation project. Whilst it would inconvenience a few fishermen it would solve the housing problembompington said:
Don't forget the runways along the topPross said:
I don't understand why use a tunnel. If they did it as a massive barrage instead think of all the electricity it could generate. Then stick wind turbines and solar panelling along it too. New road link and energy crisis resolved in one move, he lacks ambition.surrey_commuter said:Here goes with a rare congratulations to Boris for his rapid escalation of a fixed link to Ireland to comprise 3 tunnels and a roundabout under the Isle of Man.
I assume he blurted the initial idea out to distract attention and then various morons have come forwards with (un) viable suggestions to make it happen, his solution to kill it off is to triple the size of the project.
I still think he is a lying, corrupt socialist cuckoo in the Tory nest but that manouvre deserves credit.
And the 5 x 10^12 or so tonnes of landfill required could presumably be supplied by the never-ending stream of Jonhsonian bull.0 -
So economists see the damage of the pandemic as in the same ballpark as the war on the UK. Nothing else is really coming close.
The response (widely admired at the time and since) from Atlee was to create a social state and build a tonne of houses and massively increase public spending to grow out of the hole Britain found itself in.
Meanwhile we have Sunak wanting to increase taxes all around.0 -
.
Had a conversation with an old school friend who i haven't really caught up with for the past year.rick_chasey said:So economists see the damage of the pandemic as in the same ballpark as the war on the UK. Nothing else is really coming close.
The response (widely admired at the time and since) from Atlee was to create a social state and build a tonne of houses and massively increase public spending to grow out of the hole Britain found itself in.
Meanwhile we have Sunak wanting to increase taxes all around.
He's still on furlough! Guess I knew that the scheme was still active, but it came as a bit of a shock.
0 -
My brother is fast approaching his anniversary of continuous furlough.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If he is looking to increase taxes all round, and have any form of "tightening our belt", then he's going to repeat the mistakes of the last recession. I can't see it in this budget. I think he'll raise corporation tax to show that those who have had "a good covid" are making a contribution, and maybe a bit of tinkering with things that people won't notice for a couple of years. Show a direction, so that the markets don't get spooked and the price of borrowing increases. He's going to carry on handing money out too, as he should.rick_chasey said:So economists see the damage of the pandemic as in the same ballpark as the war on the UK. Nothing else is really coming close.
The response (widely admired at the time and since) from Atlee was to create a social state and build a tonne of houses and massively increase public spending to grow out of the hole Britain found itself in.
Meanwhile we have Sunak wanting to increase taxes all around.
The number of people waiting over a year for elective surgery is 150 TIMES higher than it was in 2019. That sounds like it's not time for talk of tightening our belts.0 -
I would guess the issue with repeating, or not repeating the mistakes of the post 2008 recovery, is that it would require the Conservatives to admit they made a mistake.
0 -
What on earth is there about recent political history to suggest that politicians can't do policy u-turns without a hint of embarrassment at or acknowledgement of the past?Jezyboy said:I would guess the issue with repeating, or not repeating the mistakes of the post 2008 recovery, is that it would require the Conservatives to admit they made a mistake.
0
